Talking shit about a person is one thing, grouping people into categories and denigrating or dehumanizing the whole category is another.
I'm not saying either are good, but the whole grouping people and creating an us vs them attitude is very harmful to society. Much more than talking shit about Joe because he's being a dick. There are very few situations where it's useful such as when one group by its definition harms the other, such as slave owners, corporate executives with a fiduciary duty for profit over employees and customers, etc... In any situation where there is nuance it's best to avoid making groups.
Hate misandry or misogyny without projecting it as a feature common to all men or women or feminists even if you feel a large portion of them exhibit that feature.
INCELS need to realise their problems stem from needing to be loved. It’s not anyone else’s job to understand them and fix their lives FOR them. But we can help them understand insofar as they’re willing to learn.
The second thing they and all of us need to realise is that we can’t get ALL our love from romantic partners. That puts a HUGE burden on the relationship. We need to learn how to share platonic love again. That’s what’s breaking us men. If we can’t learn to love eachother without toxic masculinity telling us it’s “gay” or whatever, then we’re doomed to losing men to loneliness, despair, and inceldom.
I think the pressure is there, and I think the word itself is one of the ways men are objectified. Objects are used, people should not be.
We’re social creatures by nature, and we all have needs. Fortunately or unfortunately our needs cannot be met without effort. I think everyone who can should contribute at least as much as they consume, if not more for the betterment of society. The way I see it, you have two ways of contributing to society.
by being productive
by augmenting others through positive interaction
There was a scene in the show “suits” where they were trying to fire the least productive intern, but before they fired him, they realized he made everyone around him more productive. That was his contribution, and getting rid of him would be a mistake.
I think with men it’s often only the first form of contributing that counts as “useful” and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
You know it’s right wing content as soon as it uses the victimizing “society has failed men and nobody cares”. Because that’s a good way to prepare someone for embracing the right wing death cult ideology. Why nurture society if it’s all against you?
Leftists use the empowering “break societal gender norms and toxic masculinity and embrace what is known to make you happy like close intimate friendships and shared vulnerability” but I’d love to see more content in this realm, the left is missing on a great opportunity here!
No, the right is pulling boys and young men because they’re the only ones that acknowledge that these boys are not thriving in modern society. The left still generally still thinks that young middle class and working class boys and men are prospering from the patriarchy and late stage capitalism. This hasn’t been true for at least a few decades now.
Ironically patriarchy and right wing libertarianism is to blame for most of the problems of these young men so all we need to do is acknowledge their suffering and point them to the obvious socialist and left wing solutions to their problems.
First, man hating feminists aren’t feminists, they’re just assholes who use acceptable rhetoric (feminism) as a cover for spreading hate and bigotry. Feminism is about equality and taking down patriarchal systems that harm everyone. Although it is female centric and tends to deal with aspects of the patriarchy that affect women and gender minorities. Feminism is VERY effective, and we’re now in a situation where the harmful effects on men of patriarchal ideology are becoming more and more obvious. I believe men’s lib is a GREAT banner for men to take down the patriarchy where they’re the most affected. Working with feminism, LGBT+ and anti-racism we can ensure all harmful aspects of patriarchy are dismantled.
Second you’re not To blame. You’re not the patriarchy and you’re certainly being hurt by it in meaningful ways. If you’re not reinforcing the patriarchal systems that are harming you, you had nothing to do with the pain you feel.
You do have places to point the finger. The patriarchy and right wing ideology harms young men. Fiscal conservatives who gut education budgets, and force a focus on STEM at the expense of physical education, cooperative group sports, and recess time. Librarian educators who put all the physical activity budget into competitive sports so that “the strong rise and the weak perish”. Pearl clutching conservatives who accuse male teachers of homosexuality, grooming, and pedophilia when they try to connect with students or introduce acceptance of LGBT+ ideology ruining the careers of male teachers and robbing boys of positive role models. Men and women who spread toxic masculinity and ridicule young boys who express their feelings or emotional needs. I could go on to show the ways right wing ideology robs boys and young men of their life satisfaction and societal prospects.
Therapy is great for personal growth. For growth within your friend group and family, you can also start looking at how toxic masculinity and regressive gender norms harm you and those around you. Most young men and women parrot these views but don’t understand them. Occasional calm, polite, assertive explanations about the ideology they’re spreading is enough for most people to realise what they’re doing. You can improve your friend group over time, as well as help you encourage good supportive friendships and trim harmful ones. That will also help your emotional and mental well-being.
These are mostly kids. Almost all are younger than 25, their brains are not fine developing. They just know they feel bad and they look to the simplest most enticing, path of least resistance to feel good.
Leftist ideology is complex and nuanced, but contains REAL solutions. Right wing rhetoric is simple but for most people it’s all empty promises and grifts. We do a great job creating accessible rhetoric for women, minorities, and LGBT+ persons and because of this these groups join in droves and obtain real improvement in their lives. We don’t do a great job of tailoring rhetoric to address the moden problems of young boys that the patriarchy creates.
That’s pretty much all I’m saying. I have a hard time understanding what there is to disagree with. I think you should look inside and think about what I said that you don’t like and why. Maybe you have something to learn or work through.
If you’re going do entertain my thought I’ll do yours!
I have one question from your assessment.
I feel like everyone wants the path of least resistance to feel good, and doesn’t look too hard unless they make politics and ideology an important part of their lives. I also think the right is trying to capture all demographics with snake oil populism. Why are they winning with young boys and not with young women, lesbians and gays (I almost added the BT+ but trying to wipe them out of existence slows recruitment drives I think), or minorities. I think it’s easy to say because they hate women and minorities but a lot of older women and minorities are strong right wingers. Are young boys are particularly wired to want snake oil compared to everyone else?
In another comment in this thread I list some of the specific problems of boys and young men with good leftist solutions.
Sure young men join the left. I wouldn’t dismiss this as “edgyness” as I said their brains aren’t fully developed and that’s just how they express themselves at that stage of development. But then they’re generally recruited as “allies” rather than as champions of their own leftist causes.
We definitely haven’t captured enough leftist men and pointed them to fight their own fights. That’s the whole concept of the left. Everyone fights the patriarchy in the ways they need, and we help eachother’s causes as allies. Only in all of our efforts combined do we destroy the structures that harm us all. What keeps a demographic here imo is having their own fights to fight. I think that’s what’s not addressed, the pipeline to channel curious dejected young boys and point them to their own leftist struggles while learning about the struggles of others isn’t as well developed as other pipelines. I think this is because it’s only in the last few decades that the left has had more to offer than the right for this demographic. To me that’s a call to work on the pipeline not to shrug and dismiss the situation.
Also I think you dismiss too quickly what the right has to offer women and minorities. Yes they openly hate them, but they offer them their own hierarchies under which to hate and control others. That’s why the right is so attractive to minorities such as immigrants who are used to thriving in the privileges offered to them in these structures. That’s why it’s so attractive to many older women who want power in local community social and political spheres. Although this is how their participation looks like in these structures, they usually see it as “improving societal norms” and “preventing moral decay and corruption of the youth”. This is important because people need to feel like the good guys. I’m not saying these people are better off under the right. I think EVERYONE is better off with the left. But there is a lack of understanding of what the right has to offer and why it’s attractive to people. It’s easier to tailor our message when we empathize with people and cater the message based on that.
Edit: I would also add being good allies to young men and boys fighting the leftist fight. Sometimes we tend to fear that helping them means somehow there will be less for everyone else, but it’s not a zero sum game. We destroy the patriarchy by dismantling it where it hurts us and by being a good ally to all of those who seek to dismantle it where it hurts them.
My comment was too long as is. There are like 20 comments in this thread I didn’t think I was asking for a lot to point you to a list.
I got to “the patriarchy” through leftism not feminism. When I say patriarchy I mean hierarchal structures of oppression. I spent a long time working against hierarchal structures and thinking before I realized that when feminists say “the patriarchy” they refer specifically to the primary hierarchal structure of oppression that has been operating for the last few centuries in the western world and in other parts. Since it’s more specific and precise than “the primary hierarchal structure of oppression that has been operating for the last few centuries in the western world and in other parts” I use it. It also helps me understand and connect to feminism better. I find as a man, it’s easy to feel alienated with certain rhetoric lately so this helps counter that.
I feel like I responded directly to your question though:
We don’t have a good pipeline for young men to get from curious to fighting for their rights through leftism
We’re not good allies to young men who fight for leftist ideology.
You’re right in your final point, most people just want to live their lives. When we show them the things that help them are on the left they’ll vote left. The ones who want to fight will be the ones fighting.
Kudos to you for contributing! No, I’ve never felt out of place in leftist spaces, but I know many young men are alienated by what they see of “loud” leftist ideology, lack of support online etc…
As for “aspects” I believe ideologically the left has the best answers for men. I think it’s more the logistical aspects I described in previous posts we don’t cover well/enough.
That’s true for small to medium-sized companies. For large and very large companies, you should consider than many OWN A LOT OF THEIR OFFICE REAL ESTATE, internationally, often in the billions of dollars worth. A large chunk of their assets are in the office buildings they own, and if they become worthless the company stands to lose a lot. Not to mention that they will often borrow against the value of the buildings, and as a collateral if the value drops significantly the banks might decide that they have to pay back the excess portion of their loan immediately or put up more collateral (margin call).
I think it’s a tragedy of the commons type scenario. If they all act together and force everyone back to the office, then the real estate will be used and have value. If they all don’t then all the real estate becomes worthless.
You’re right though, each of them individually could sell the property, or lease it and come out ahead. As soon as that starts though, it becomes a game of hot potato, who holds the buildings when they lose their value?
I agree with your overall conclusion, but not with your theory. Yes men and women have more equality in education and professional settings. However, women have changed the social and romantic spheres through feminism SIGNIFICANTLY. The household division of labor and the power dynamics in a relationship are two pretty big examples of change. Yes, women haven’t changed the systems that benefit them. I don’t think that’s out of a desire to “maintain a benefit”. I think it’s because it is hard to see a system that doesn’t hurt you, or one that benefits you. That’s the whole concept of privilege: the benefits are invisible to those that benefit. These aspects of patriarchy hurt men, and it is therefore men who must demand and create change, to take down the patriarchal systems that hurt us.
We just never noticed because before because on the whole cis straight white men benefited and everyone else suffered. Now that everyone is taking apart all the systems that hurt them (often to our benefit), all that’s left are the parts that hurt us (sometimes to the benefit of others). We just need to keep taking the patriarchy apart!
This article does a good job of pointing out yet another toxic gender norm that applies to men. Ironically most of the replies agree that toxic masculinity is bad, but are also reinforcing toxic masculinity because it’s “unmanly to be weak and successor to harmful gender norms”.
Men are allowed to be weak, and they’re worth helping when they fall for stupid ideas like “it’s unmanly to post a lot” or “it’s unmanly to fall for such an obviously false/toxic idea of masculinity”.
I love Townsends. I love the channel even more after seeing this video. Pioneer times are synonymous with the “rugged individual”, but here is someone who studies the time period and even simulates it who says it’s more about the strength of human bonds we make with our community rather than any individual effort Then he brings it back to modern times and reminds us that it’s the same strength of human bonds that will get us through the difficult environments we face today. That’s an important lesson!
The Perception Paradox: Men Who Hate Feminists Think Feminists Hate Men ( msmagazine.com )
Want to Fix America’s Broken Sexual Culture? Ditch the Myth That Young Men Don’t Want Love. ( slate.com )
[DISCUSSION] Weekly Discussion Wednesday - Do you feel pressured to be a useful man?
This week’s prompt is: Do you feel pressured to be a useful man?...
The Male Loneliness Epidemic ( www.youtube.com )
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQv8VuLpKN4
Discussion about „the Left has failed men“ ( youtu.be )
I watched a video today talking about common talking points concerning how „the left has failed men“...
The Elite's War on Remote Work Has Nothing to Do with Productivity ( www.okdoomer.io )
Many Ways to Be a Girl, but One Way to Be a Boy: The New Gender Rules (Published 2018) ( web.archive.org )
Fellas, Is It “Unmanly” to Post a Lot? We call it the “frequent-posting femininity stereotype,” and it’s measurable. ( slate.com )
The Myth of "The Rugged Individual" ( youtu.be )